Posts Tagged ‘linkedin’

Social Media Psychology: SM Is Worse For You Than You Thought

March 31, 2015 1 comment

For all the time we devote to social media, you would think that it would register some meaningful improvement to our lives. You would expect that social media would do something psychologically beneficial for us: elevate our mood, increase our energy, or help us get more out of the day.

But the more research that comes in, the more social media looks to be a wasteland of clickbait and sadness.

Social Media and Psychology: How to Kill Productivity and Happiness

According to a recent study in Computers in Human Behavior, personal social media use not only correlates inversely with productivity (we already knew this in our hearts), but correlates inversely with happiness as well. The correlation is true regardless of how good a multitasker you are, and regardless of how well you can focus your attention on a subject.

The study notes that to date, we have all kinds of research on how distraction can impede someone’s performance at a task. And though it seems obvious that personal social media use would be classified as a distraction, there is not a lot of present research on whether or not social media specifically impedes performance.

However, the psychology of social media is not just about efficiency. Maybe we are willing to give up some efficiency for something that makes us happy. We must, after all, be getting something out of all the time we spend on social media; if it’s not something tangible like efficiency, then it’s something intangible like happiness.

Except that’s wrong.

Social Media and Happiness: Less (of the Former) Is More (of the Latter)

The researchers also took happiness scale evaluations during their social media usage experiment. Social media lowers happiness, and it does so in two ways.

First, it lowers happiness directly. This largely has to do with self-comparison to one’s peers. As the report hypothesizes:

Many news stories published by popular media outlets are concerned with negative impacts on happiness from social media. One story in particular, entitled ‘‘Facebook: The Encyclopedia of Beauty?’’ discusses the rampant unhappiness that can be found in college-aged females living on campus. The story gives accounts of self-esteem issues and other negative effects from over-usage of social media.

Secondly, social media increases a sub-category of stressors that researchers our now labeling “technostress.” Technostress is defined by psychologists as “‘any negative impact on attitudes, thoughts, behaviors, or body physiology that is caused either directly or indirectly by technology.”

This is not something that’s only experienced by people who are uncomfortable with computers and devices. The article cites a University of Edinburgh study, which found that “the more Facebook friends a user has, the more likely you are to feel stressed out by the social media.” And there is already a very good foundation of research supporting the notion that increases in stress diminish happiness. So, if social media ads stress and stress diminishes happiness, then you can get the rest.

The study revealed that personal social media use lowered productivity by way of causing distraction. This finding is in line with what’s call Distraction-Conflict Theory, which says basically that distractions cause some of the information necessary for the primary task to fall out of short-term memory. This is no surprise to anyone who’s ever used social media.

What was a surprise was that the effect was just a dramatic among poor multitaskers as it was among people who rated themselves great multitaskers. As the report puts it, “This result lends support to the common rhetoric that people are not as good at multitasking as they think they are.”

In Summary

So, in three points, here’s what all this means for us:

1. Social media makes you less productive despite how good a multitasker you think you are.

2. Social media makes you unhappy in the long run, both directly and by adding stress.

3. We’re probably still going to spend all our time on Facebook and Twitter anyway…

That last point is not from the report, but we both know it’s true.



Marketing Psychology: Price Framing

January 30, 2015 2 comments

Price framing is one of those topics that everyone seems to have heard of, but every person you ask will give you a different definition of what it is and how it works. Yet if you’re managing a web store with thousands of products, for example, understanding how to present prices and products in the most optimal way can make an enormous revenue difference.

Let’s take a moment to talk about how price framing works and why it has an effect on consumers.

First of all, when we talk about price framing, we’re talking about changing the context of a price presentation – without substantially changing the price itself – in order to encourage more purchases. This is the reason you’re charged $39.99 rather than $40.00 for iPhone earbuds. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

What Do You Mean I’m Not Being Rational?!

One of the most amazing things about how price framing works is that it shouldn’t work at all. Up until a few decades ago, economic theory took utilitarianism as a given. When making a choice whether or not to buy an iPhone, both economists and psychologists assumed that you made a rational calculation of the pros and cons of the choice, and selected the outcome that, to the best of your knowledge, would be most useful or advantageous to you.

So it shouldn’t matter at all how a price is presented to you. The price is the price, and you should make the same calculation of advantages regardless of context.

Except that the rational action theory of economics turns out to be mostly bullshit.

If rational action theory were true, your tendency to purchase a $39.99 item (when you would not have purchased a $40 item) would be based solely on the utility of the one-cent savings. I think we can all agree that something else is at work here. This is an example of how marketers have always been decades ahead of economists.

The first people who noticed that people don’t make explicitly rational outcome choices were psychologists Daniel Kahneman and the late Amos Tversky. They are the grandfathers of what’s now called behavioral economics. They discovered through controlled experiments that people use cognitive shortcuts, called biases, to help make choices. These shortcuts don’t always produce rational decisions.

For example, Kahneman and Tversky discovered that, when people are given a choice of losing $10 for sure, or having a 50-50 chance of losing $25, they tend to avoid the certain loss even though rationally speaking it’s the worse choice.

Other pioneers have significantly advanced the study of these cognitive shortcuts. Two of the most prominent are Richard Thaler (author of Nudge), and Dan Ariely (author of Predictably Irrational).

So, what affect can these biases have on consumer behavior (and specific to us, on price presentation)?

Here are three major principles that may be helpful:

1. People evaluate prices relative to a reference point

Up until recently we believed that, when evaluating a potential purchase, people made comparisons to absolutes. Is this iPhone worth the 400 units of currency that I will part with?

Well, it turns out that we evaluate purchases on relative terms. We’re looking for the value that’s reasonable. But what’s reasonable can be determined by many things.

In a Psychology Today article called “Pricing and Framing: When Are We Likely to Pay More For Products,” Dr. Gizem Saka gives us the scenario of the bread maker:

…You have two options. A standard quality break maker is for sale for $80; and a higher quality bread maker is sold at $120. You compare and contrast the two machines. You tell yourself you are not an expert maker, and you go with the $80 one.


Now when you go to the shop, you have 3 options. You can spend $80, or $120 or $475. Rationally speaking, adding an irrelevant option should not change your decision between the $80 and the $120 ones. The pros and cons did not change; quality of the bread makers remained the same, and you are making the same salary. You know that you are never going to spend $475 on a break maker…

But the thing is, now you do would feel more comfortable buying the $120 one. After all, you are not buying the most expensive alternative. You have found the middle ground, and you are probably happier, compared to someone who buys the cheaper version with only two options.

This is a form of psychological anchoring that Saka describes is widely known as the irrelevant third option, or in business terms, the loss leader. It is a super-premium product that may not be profitable in its own right but makes the next option down seem more attractive.

This is the most famous use of the principle that the attractiveness of an option will change depending on what’s presented with it. But this is only one example of the effect one can have by introducing or removing options.

2. People evaluate price differences relative to the level of the initial price.

The scientific name for this is the Weber-Fechner Law, if you want to Google it.

You will tend to be more motivated if a $20 price is lowered to $10, than if a $120 price were lowered to $110. Again, there’s no good reason for this. The economic advantage to you is the same in both scenarios.

Ernst Weber was a 19th century scientists who discovered that the stronger a stimulus is, the more change you have to make to it before we can perceive the change. If you’re carrying three pounds of stuff and I add a pound, you will notice the change much more easily than if you’re carrying 30 lbs and I add one.

Fechner improved on this idea by figuring out the mathematical relationship between intensity and perceived change (it’s a simple logarithm, if you care).

The Weber-Fechner law is why you have a hard time paying $5.00 for a Starbucks Sugar-coma Mocha, but you have an easier time coming down $5,000 on the asking price for the house you’re selling. This is especially important when studying price elasticity – the variation in dollar amount that people are willing to pay for the same item.

3. Losses hurt more than gains give pleasure.

This is part of what’s called the Endowment Effect, for you Googlers. People tend to ascribe more value to that which they own. Therefore people try to avoid losses more than achieve gains. People want to avoid late fees more than they care to take advantage of early-bird discounts, even if the value is the same.

One working paper from a USM student described how this effect was studied on the “discount for cash” gasoline consumers in the 80’s.

It’s illegal to do so now, but it used to be that gas stations would charge you a special surcharge if you wanted to pay with a credit card (trying to recoup their extra processing fees). The credit card companies, fearing backlash insisted that any such price difference had to be termed a “cash discount” rather than a “credit surcharge.”

It turns out they were right to fear: those paying for gas by credit card had a significantly more negative reaction to the transaction if they “paid a surcharge” rather than simply missing out on a “discount.”

Further Research

Research is still young in this field, fleshing out the details of principles like these. The results are fascinating. For example, one working paper from the Harvard Business School found that it makes a big difference in preference depending on whether a price is “all-inclusive” or “partitioned.”

If you split out a price into line items, the way budget airlines are more prone to do, people will tend to prefer the deal if the secondary item is top-notch for the price (incredible in-flight service, full-service meal, etc), and oppose the deal if the secondary item is lackluster (one movie option, snackbox, etc.).

Why is this? because the secondary item is easier to evaluate compared to its price than the primary item (the plane trip itself). It’s easier to see if you’re getting a deal or not. So if your secondary items aren’t that high-quality for the money, all-inclusive is the way to go.

I’m excited to see what new principles we’ll be able to add to these three as research develops. If you have some to add (and can cite your source), please use the comments to let people know!


Applying the 80/20 Rule to Marketing: A First Look

December 31, 2014 Leave a comment

One of the many great lessons I’ve taken from Tim Ferriss is the active application of the 80/20 rule to projects and endeavors.

The 80/20 rule, known more formally as the Pareto Principle, states that 80% of your effects are usually generated by 20% of your inputs. For example, in B2B sales it’s often the case that 80% of the revenue comes from 20% of the customers. If you’re running a PPC campaign right now, it’s highly likely that 80% of your traffic comes from 20% of your bidded keywords. The ratios are not always exact, but the point of the principle is that in any given situation, the vast majority of our effort may not be achieving substantial returns.

This is why analytics have become so important to marketing over the last ten years, and why CMO’s have become obsessed with ROI tracking. The moment that companies could finally calculate the direct effect of advertising, most senior executives had a heart attack at the inefficiencies they saw (there’s a reason they call is “spray-and-pray”). The last decade of marketing has been about reallocating resources to where they demonstrate measurable results.

Pareto 101: Baby and the Bathwater

It’s easy to assume that just because you find an 80/20 dynamic somewhere, it’s always a problem that must be fixed. It’s not. The 80/20 dynamic will always tend to exist, even in optimized systems. It’s part of what happens when a system finds equilibrium. Sometimes expending effort on the lower 80% is absolutely necessary to maintain the top 20%.

Here’s an example: if you sell technology, you may decide that you only want to offer technical support to your top 20% of customers (let’s say “enterprise” customers). They are, after all, the ones who are supplying the majority of the revenue. You can do that, but your brand will be damaged by the refusal of support to the other 80%. So that may not be the world’s best idea.

Now, it’s tempting to apply the 80/20 rule only from a monetary perspective.  But because many marketing departments in the SMB world are staffed by only a handful of people, it may be more interesting to apply it from a time perspective instead. What tactics – hacks – can you apply to marketing that will have the highest gains compared to the amount of time it takes to implement and sustain them?

Where do we face this challenge at its most stark? Digital content marketing.

Content marketing – including blogging, social media, case studies, whitepapers, etc. – is a hugely important part of the digital marketing world. If you produce enough informative, interesting, trust-inspiring content, people will come to your website looking for more of your sage wisdom. They will trust you and your products, because of your authoritative works. They will share your content with their friends and colleagues, who will in turn link to your site and establish those all-important backlinks that are necessary for organic rankings…and then you’ll rule the world…

…in theory…

Content marketing is also incredibly labor intensive, even when content is actively repackaged and repurposed. Marketing Directors tend to fall in love with it because the only expense is salary – a sunk cost. But without an audience actively sharing your content, linking to it, or using it in a specific evaluation of whether or not to buy, it consumes more value in time than the results it generates.

Try This At Home

You want a fun activity? Select an SEO agency at random (these are the agencies who are supposedly the best at using tactics like content generation to foster backlinks and organic search results). Take a look at how much content they’re generating on their own behalf (it’s typically a lot). Then, go to the Moz website and enter their main URL into the search tool. Look at their Domain Authority score (this is how much authority the domain has achieved based on backlinks, social shares, age of domain, etc. – this is the necessary prerequisite to high search rankings). Anything under 50 is pathetic. An agency that knows anything about SEO should have an authority in the 80s or 90s. How did yours score?

Most companies, including the SEO agencies who should know better, produce a ton of original content that no one reads, no one shares, and has no effect on trust, authority or ranking. This is a ripe area for the 80/20 rule to be applied.

Looking to Apply the 80/20 Rule To Marketing

Andy Crestodina, the Strategic Director of Orbit Media, is one of the most successful appliers of Content Marketing for the purpose of search optimization. His book, Content Chemistry, discusses the concept of “atomizing” content. That is, creating one large unit of content that can be broken down and repurposed through many different media. For example, an eBook that also serves as a blog series, the basis for an infographic, the outline for multiple webinars, etc.

This is an example of applying the 80/20 rule to content marketing: creating content that can be atomized and repurposed with minimal extra labor. But this is just one example. Imagine how we could apply this principle to other channels like database marketing, telemarketing, and even traditional channels.

Time to open up the floor. Where in your experience can marketers pick up the most true gains with the least amount of implementation time and effort?

These could be ideas at the tactical level, like headline-writing, simple web forms, or building your influencer network. But I’m really looking for the subtle, couterintuitive ideas that on one’s talking about. Did you ever try a marketing experiment that made no logical sense and have it pay dividends, the way some people increase the fat content of their diet in order to lose weight?

What’s your best marketing time-hack?

Everything You’ve Been Taught About Public Speaking is a Myth

November 30, 2014 6 comments

Let me clarify the title a bit: everything you’ve been taught about public speaking can only get you to a certain level of proficiency. Then, like in every other area of mastery, you have to re-think everything you’ve learned because it’s time to make finer distinctions. As Marshall Goldsmith says, What Got You Here Won’t Get You There.

Nine out of every ten sources of advice for public speaking are designed for one purpose: to get beginners over their fears. They say things like “know your audience,” “know your venue,” and “know your material.” The thing is, there are many professionals out there for whom this advice is an insult to their intelligence. They speak regularly, and want to become masterful. But what examples and advice do they have to work from?

This is a list of 10 truisms about public speaking that, once you gain some proficiency, will not serve you anymore. Don’t be the speaker or performer who is still using the same bag of tricks that got them through high school and college. Break out of old thoughts!

Myth #1: The Main Focus of Learning to Be a Speaker is to Get Over Nervousness

Most books and advice sites on public speaking imply that once you get over your fears, you’re pretty much good to go. To this end, they advise basic strategies like knowing your material, knowing your audience, practicing, and gaining experience.

Two issues here. First, there is no getting-over-the-nervousness. There is only executing-well-while-being-nervous. You think nervousness ever goes away for skydivers? Why would they want it to? The nervousness is the whole point. Without nervousness, skydiving is just five minutes of a rather nice view. Likewise, people become speaking and performance masters because of the rush. They embrace it and look forward to it.

Second issue: once you can speak to an audience despite being nervous, you’re not at the end of your journey. You’re at the beginning. The main focus of learning to be a speaker is to help your audience change their lives for the better. This is true no matter the topic. You want them to see something differently and behave differently after you’re done. It’s not about your nervousness, it’s about mastering the art of helping and serving others en masse.

Myth #2: I’m Ready to Go Once I’ve Run it a Few Times and Feel Comfortable

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I’ve met in my life who could deliver a masterful speech after only having run it a couple of times. And they were all well-trained performers from an early age.

What’s more, most people don’t rehearse their speeches or presentations out loud. They sit in a chair and flip through their PowerPoint deck a couple of times, and then bore their audience to death by reading off the slides. Again, “feeling comfortable” is not the standard. It’s only a slight reassurance that you won’t publicly soil yourself. I know speaking trainers who advocate an hour of rehearsal for every minute of speaking time. Whatever you’re doing no only isn’t enough…it probably isn’t in the ballpark.

Myth #3: Top Speakers Are All High Energy Performers

I want you to, right now, Google “Public Speaking Champion” and then look at some of the YouTube videos. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Most of them are cringe-worthy. Some are full of high-energy schtick. Others are more subdued, but full of very contrived pacing and performance-art moments. They seem like they should be powerful and captivating, but something feels inauthentic, like a Rolex from a sidewalk vendor.

That which is touted as “great speaking” today is stuff that is hacked together from a tool kit taught at the high-school and college levels. It is choreographed and paced within an inch of its life. All authenticity is squeezed out.

Really great speaking is that which the speakers manage to find renewed emotional connection to thoughts they’ve already had, as if they were experiencing them for the first time. The rest is decoration.

Myth #4: Nervousness Goes Away With Helpful Mental Tricks and Visualizations

See Myth #1. Nervousness does not go away. You know what compounds the problem? Taking your mind off your message and your audience in order to do something stupid like visualize them in their underwear. I have no idea why this old chestnut is still around.

Now, can meditation, guided visualization and/or a consistent warm-up routine help you before you speak? Absolutely. Most stage actors in fact tend to be rigorous bordering on superstitious about how they prepare for a performance. But do not expect this to make everything magically easy.

Myth #5: It’s Important to Preplan and Choreograph Your Gestures

I’ve coached high-school and college level performers to choreograph gestures before, but it was because the stylized nature of that competitive environment demands it. When speaking coaches focus on gestures, it’s usually because they’re dealing with a beginner who’s hands are frozen by nervousness.

Once you get to the intermediate level, your hands will start talking for you. Sometimes out of nervousness or learned bad habits, a speaker will use their hands too much or to little, and a good speaking coach will catch that and tell you that you can tone it up or tone it down. But choreographed gesturing always comes off inauthentically. You know why? It’s not authentic.

Myth #6: Whatever You Do, Be Sure to Memorize / Not Memorize Your Speech

I’ve heard people say both of these. Most people say “don’t memorize,” because they’re working with beginners who can’t pull off a memorized speech. On the other hand, it takes a performer with pretty significant chops to memorize a speech completely and then deliver it with that first-time authenticity. Most pros I’ve seen can’t even do that.

When I deliver a speech, I’ve run it so many times that I know my word choice pretty well, like maybe 90%. The remaining 10% is just sentence formation flexibility. I don’t want to throw myself because I meant to say, “one and two” but I end up saying “one and also two”. The really short speeches (2-3 minutes) I’ll memorize unless I’m introducing someone. I’ll read introductions right off the card because the biggest sin is forgetting to mention something. Most people do the opposite: they have no idea what words they’re going to use and end up jabbering on five times as long as they should.

There is no one rule about memorization that covers every circumstance, but don’t use that as an excuse for lack of preparation. Know what you’re going to say, whatever that means to you.

Myth #7: Whatever You Do, Be Sure To / Please Don’t Try to Add Humor

I’ve heard this one both ways as well. Most advice blogs say to add some humor, especially at the beginning. Most coaches of beginners say not to try to be funny because you’ll never pull it off.

There is no right answer to this. Yes, speeches work better with some humor to connect to, especially in the beginning. Most speakers, when they hear this, go about it by writing a speech or presentation with no humor and then try to shoehorn jokes into the writing after the fact. Masterful speakers aren’t necessarily joke-writers, but they are so comfortable in their own voice that they can let their natural sense of humor come through in their writing.

If you take the risk and it bombs, it’s not the end of the world if you keep your energy going and move right on. I’ve done this. I usually bomb when I misjudge my audience. If the crowd is really all-business or you’re getting them at a time when they’re tense and not warmed up, it’s an uphill battle to make the humor work. If it’s a close call, I would advise you to work humor into the speech even at the risk of bombing, because you want to gain the experience.

Myth #8: Don’t Acknowledge Your Mistakes

I can see why this myth exists. When you’re a beginner and you’re all caught up in your nerves, mistakes can really throw you off your game. You haven’t yet gained experience on how to handle them.

First of all, what is a mistake? Some students that I’ve coached would get bent out of shape about accidentally leaving out two sentences somewhere, when their delivery and room chemistry was truly energizing. Other students would pat themselves on the back for making it through with no technical mistakes, when their delivery was flat and unconnected.

I know it’s hard to see mistakes as gifts, because up in front of people they can feel mortifying. That’s fine. We all make them. Pros make them. The panache is in the handling, which comes with the experience of having screwed up. If you trip over the mic cord and try to not acknowledge it, that will read as goofy. It happened. The pro keeps her composure and says, “Well, that happened.”

Don’t worry about mistakes. Don’t even worry about acknowledging them, if they’re obvious. Just keep your composure.

Myth #9: The Speech’s Length Should Be Under 20 min / 30 min / 40 min / However Long It Needs to Be.

There are a lot of differing opinions on how long you should go. Some coaches say to keep it under 30 minutes because of the average listener’s attention span. Peggy Noonan says to keep it under 20 minutes because Ronald Reagan never went over 20 minutes. I kid you not.

My point in this section is that the actual minute count is not the big deal (within reason). The big deal is that your speech, however long it is, is about twice as long as it needs to be.

We’ve become accustomed to writing for the filling of time, and it’s gotten us used to bloated speaking. It’s no wonder that people start pulling out their smartphones while we’re talking. Did you write a pitch presentation for a piece of creative business that goes for 30 minutes? It probably should be 15. Did you write a 20 minute graduation speech? It would probably be a better speech at 10 minutes. And your six minute Best Man speech will be much more effective at three minutes.

Don’t write to fill time. However much material you believe is appropriate, do enough refining to take out at least half. This is hard, time consuming work and absolutely necessary to mastery.

Myth #10: Start With Small Audiences and Work Up to Big Ones

I’m a big believer in gaining progressive experience. But remember that speaking for a small group of people whom you know and whose faces you can see might be more freaky that speaking in front of an auditorium full of strangers.

Progressive experience doesn’t necessarily mean increasing the audience size. It means increasing the stakes. You start in an environment where you feel safe. Maybe one-on-one with a coach. And then you bring in more relatively safe people. You should progress in a way where you feel scared, but not prohibitively so.


Do you find this subject interesting? If so, then please leave a comment. I’m trying to determine if there’s enough interest in public speaking mastery to expand further on it. I’ll make that determination based on the comments that you leave here, and the questions you have. Happy Speaking!

The Stoics and the Epicureans

October 31, 2014 Leave a comment

The Stoics for the motivation and achievement, but the Epicureans for the style…

Seneca the Younger

I recently got onto Hellenist moral philosophy after reading The Obstacle Is The Way, one of the books recommended by Tim Ferriss. The book is a motivating entree into Stoic thought, and Ferriss himself is a devotee of Seneca, a famous Stoic philosopher.

Several hundred years before Christ, two post-Socratic schools of thought emerged as to the nature of the universe and how we should behave within it to live the optimum life. Many of the teachings these schools reverberate today.

The Epicureans are my sentimental favorite, and they were astonishingly ahead of their time in deducing how the universe actually works. They were adopters of Democritus‘ idea that objects are made of atoms, and that those atoms move through space. They did not know about how light works, but deduced that something traveled from the object to the eye. They came very close to articulating the conservation of mass theory, millennia before Einstein proved that matter and energy were interchangeable.

Epicureans did believe in the gods, but did not believe that they intervened in the actions of the earth. Therefore, they believed that they had nothing to fear from the gods, and therefore nothing to fear from death. Life was simply to be lived, and therefore they concluded that the optimum life was lived as pleasurably as possible. Happiness was the thing to be pursued, as Jefferson (himself an epicurean) pronounces in the Declaration of Independence.

This leads many people to equate epicureanism with hedonism. And, to be fair, if you know anyone today that you’d call “Epicurean”, they usually know where the best food and drink can be found. But epicureans meant “pleasure” mostly to mean freedom from anxiety. Under their moral code, for example, you would not want to steal from your neighbor – not because it’s intrinsically wrong but because it would result in anxiety from the theft and secrecy, and the potential consequences put your happiness at risk. Better to live simply, treat others well, and cultivate friendships. Don’t worry…be happy.

I love the Epicureans for an outlook on life so far from my own. If I were capable of doing away with my needless anxiety and absorbing myself in food, drink, thought and friendship, I’d be right there. I know people like this, and they’re the right people to chill with. As a matter of fact, Epicurean notions are still present today in modern psychotherapy, where a psychiatrist will try to allow a patient to let go of his or her idea of what the world “should” be, and accept it as it is.

The one place where epicurean thought is largely mute is having to do with concepts like achievement, motivation, and personal development. The ancient Greek epicureans did not seek to achieve greatly, instead they secluded themselves in a commune. Politics and industry brought about anxieties that were detrimental to the pleasures of a simply-lived life. For achievement and growth, you have to talk to the Stoics.

Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Visual Approximation)

Rather than a concept of the universe that was atomic and mostly random, the Stoics believed that the universe was created by the gods with a distinct universal order, and everything had a distinct purpose. The purpose (and the only purpose) of a horse, for example, was husbandry.

Remember Silence of the Lambs? When Lecter told Clarice to “read Marcus Aurelius” (another Stoic philosopher)? What did he say? He said that the emperor counsels simplicity. Of each thing, ask, what is it’s nature? It’s purpose?

To the Stoics, everything literally had one defined nature and purpose. The nature and purpose of the human, being the only animal that reasons, is to live its life using his natural capacity for reason. This meant living in accordance with nature, natural order, and therefore the reason allows us to understand what the natural order of the world actually is. With me so far?

The optimum way for a Stoic to live is therefore as virtuously as possible. One must try and become a paragon of virtue, because our sense of logic and reason tells us that it best serves the natural order of the universe for us to do so.

You can see that this concept of morality is 180 degrees apart from the epicurean philosophy. One is sensory, visceral, pleasure-seeking, deemphasizes ambition, reclusive, and seeks a mental framework that avoids anxiety by doing away with the concept of “should”. The other is top-down, orderly, reasoning, taming, and harbors ambition to achieve a highly virtuous and logical life. One looks at obstacles and says, “Don’t worry about it.” The other looks at obstacles and says, “Overcoming this obstacle will lead to further development.”

For us simple folk, we probably unwittingly live somewhere in between these two extremes. But you notice that neither one of these great philosophies looks at obstacles and says, “I must whine for sympathy and feel like I’m doomed.” Nor does either school think that the optimum life is lived by creating maximum anxiety in order to compete for wealth, status, and the purchasing of insignificant stuff. Each philosophy is a study in self discipline and mental conditioning, just in opposing directions.

It was useful for me, and it might be useful for you, to look at the anxieties in your own life and ask, “Am I doing this for a purpose that makes sense, or am I just reaching higher?” And if we find that we are constantly making unreasoned, half-asleep choices about achievement and attitude, how might these models serve as something to strive for?

PeopleTriggers Wants to Hear from You!

September 28, 2014 3 comments

Just a short solicitation this month.

Most of the past articles on PeopleTriggers came from whatever fascinating quirk of human nature had my attention in that moment. Many are inspired by books or articles that I was reading at the time. Now, I’d like to put more thought into the topics, lists or how-tos that might be most helpful or valuable to you. I don’t yet do the greatest job of actually asking people what they would like to read, or framing that knowledge in the form of solving a specific problem. I want to get better at that.

As a first step, I’d like to take a few requests.

Are you fascinated by any one particular aspect of psychology, like developmental or educational? Do you want to see articles that are simple explorations (like most that I do now), or do you like the Top 10’s and the 5 Things You Can Do Right Now?

You’ve paid me a lot of kindness, viewing and following this blog. I’d like to see how I can make this experience even more valuable for you. If you’ve been curious about any element of psychology, sociology, motivation, performance or acting, please let me know your thoughts.

Let’s light up the comments field below! Looking forward to hearing from you!

The Five “People-triggers” Discoveries That Most Changed My Life

August 29, 2014 1 comment

Screenshot 2014-08-29 15.31.58I’ve been writing the People-triggers blog since 2010.  After all that time, I’m not sure I’m any closer to understanding why we do what we do, and why we get out of bed in the morning.

Psychology feels like it’s nipping around the edges of this question. Like the moment anyone gets close to an insight, they stop studying, write a book and start trying to teach everyone how to stay motivated and influence others. In the 70’s, we were sure that Transactional Analysis was a scientific approach to relationships. In the 80’s, we were sure that we needed to praise our children regardless of result because self-esteem correlates with success.

Think of what we’re sure about today. Working from home achieves higher productivity. No wait, it kills collaboration. Group brainstorming produces better outcomes than individual reflection. No wait, it shouts down the introverts and encourages rule-by-volume.

In psychology, today’s bestseller is tomorrow’s bullshit.

That all being said, I’ve looked back at the readings and writings I’ve done over the past four plus years and I’ve found five discoveries-five core principles-that I’m willing to bet will stand the test of time. More than that, they changed my life because I was able to 1) become more effective in producing output, and 2) stop wasting energy worrying about certain things. So, here they are: Read more…